New Texas science standards saddled with incoherent changes

The Texas State Board of Education managed to keep the "strengths and …

You win some, you lose some. That's the message that the scientific community got from the Texas State Board of Education last week, as it voted on new state standards for science education. When it comes to the big picture, there was good news, as the problematic "strengths and weaknesses" language was deleted, and an effort to challenge common descent was turned back. But things were not so rosy in the fine print, where amendments to the standards raised questions about the age of the universe and adopted language favored by the intelligent design movement.

As we mentioned last week, things were bound to be complicated. The existing standards had indicated that teachers instruct students on the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories, even if the strengths significantly outweigh the weaknesses, or when the weaknesses required an understanding of the topic that is far too sophisticated for public school students. As such, replacement standards proposed by a committee of scientists and educators dropped this language. Those replacements, however, had to get past a state board chaired by someone who, based on his belief that the universe is less than 10,000 years old, thinks most of modern science suffers from serious weaknesses.

Board Chair Don McLeroy did not disappoint, as evidenced in this YouTube video in which he makes an impassioned plea for two amendments to the standards that would undercut instruction on evolution. Mystified as to why the scientific community didn't see things the way he did and apparently unable to contemplate the possibility that he has things wrong, McLeroy urges the board to join a crusade against the scientific community. "Somebody has to stand up to these experts," he said, while expressing incredulity about their opposition, stating, "I don't know why they’re doing it." Elsewhere, he argued that evolution isn't science, saying, "it's an ideology" and "evolution goes back to someone who came up with a philosophical speculation."

McLeroy doesn't blindly object to all biology, however. In contrast to evolution, he noted that "genetics goes back to a Christian monk" in arguing that it was far more important. Nevertheless, the strengths and weaknesses language remained out of the standards, as did McLeroy's attacks on evolution. That doesn't mean, however, that the science standards emerged from the process unscathed. Instead of major attacks on central ideas, science seems to have suffered a death of 1,000 cuts, with small, scientifically senseless changes scattered throughout the standards.

So, instead of "strengths and weaknesses," the new standards call for students to "analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations" based in part on "examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific experiments." Not only is the grammar fractured, but scientific experiments are usually notable for not supporting "all sides" of an argument.

As might be expected, the age of the universe came in for some questioning. A standard that mentioned the universe was roughly 14 billion years old was amended to require students to evaluate "current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe." Elsewhere, students are instructed to consider how the data "reveal differing theories about the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe." Apparently, the board was unaware that our estimates of the age of the universe have narrowed considerably in the last few decades.

More generally, this focus on multiple theories makes frequent appearances when elected bodies, like school boards and state legislatures, attempt to modify science education. It suggests that, when faced with the fact that science has adopted a theory that the officials dislike, they assume there must be another, competing theory that is more amenable to their beliefs. In reality, having an explanatory model reach the status of scientific theory by necessity means that it explains the scientific data better than competing ideas, so there rarely are competing theories.

Elsewhere, standard themes from the creationist and intelligent design literature made an appearance. Students are expected to consider the "sudden appearance" of lineages in the fossil record, which the creationist literature argues is an indication that these lineages were instantaneously created. What has suddenly appeared is a focus on complexity, a staple of the arguments of intelligent design backers like Mike Behe and William Dembski. So, for example, the Board added a new standard, directing students to "analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of the cell."

When proposed, one of the board members pointed out that there wasn't a scientific definition of the "complexity of the cell," making the standard impossible to teach. She was told that it was obvious—McLeroy said, "it's not an issue, it's just a fact"—that there were computer animations that showed things that looked complex, and that the standard was about natural selection, not complexity. Despite this issue, the amendment passed.

Finally, there were cases where the amendments of the anti-evolution activists on the board were simply incoherent. Teachers now have to ensure that students can "analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life." Nothing after "simple organic molecules" in that sentence makes much sense.

Ultimately, the impact of these changes is a bit difficult to judge. One obvious reason to care about the Texas standards is what goes on in the classrooms of that state. Here, the news is bad; by using terms like "sudden appearance" and "complexity of the cell" that frequently appear in the literature of the creationism and intelligent design movements, the new standards have opened the way for teachers to bring scientifically spurious materials into the classroom.

But Texas is also important because it is a major market for textbooks, which often tailor their content to the state's education standards. Here, the board's lack of scientific understanding may have played against their goals. Although their amendments sought to undercut mainstream science, they were written in a way that is difficult to understand in either a scientific or general sense. Textbook companies may simply choose to sidestep the issue.

From the article: "...thinks most of modern science suffers from serious weaknesses."

Well, he does have a point in one aspect although its not considered. That aspect is the human element never being able to know everything, and that is a serious weakness. The other weakness is this is happening in Texas where people still argue over sheep vs longhorns water rights.

Apparently, the board was unaware that our estimates of the age of the universe have narrowed considerably in the last few decades.

A detractor would claim that it is just like the dinosaur bones; it appears that way but it was designed that way by God as a test of our faith. Those who have the true faith know in their hearts that the world is only 6000 years old because the bible says so, and it is just a trick to see who's paying attention.

Y'know ... this kind of balderdash happens in other states besides Texas too. In its own way it happens in New York ... and our state education board is .... ahem ... noticeably more "GODDAMM*D COMMIE PINKO ATHEIST LIBURAL" .. than the Texas board.

The only reason this crap matters is that Texas is the second most populous state of the union and (california is #1, and they are distinctly pinko by Texas standards, even though der Governator is a republican) ... so changes to the education code in Texas tend to have national impacts on textbooks.

Changes made by Wyoming in contrast ... have very little effect. Ditto Vermont.

And so you get these boards loaded with inadvertent Bozos and the predictable ensues ... really bad humor. They don't even get the joke. And rationally, if you think about it for a second ... this doesn't matter very much EXCEPT for the textbooks and the standard curricula. Those do matter, but I don't know a science teacher in New York state who gives a rat dropping for what the NYS Board of education says about similar issues ... as long as the school commissioner isn't listening.

Now what DOES matter ... and you want to watch these issues like crazy, particularly if you have a kid in that state ... is WTF is on the state assessment tests. That you want to pay attention to.

quote:

So, instead of "strengths and weaknesses," the new standards call for students to "analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations" based in part on "examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific experiments." Not only is the grammar fractured, but scientific experiments are usually notable for not supporting "all sides" of an argument.

Actually the most common outcome of a "scientific experiment" is "WTF??" ... the vast fraction being botched or ill-designed from the get-go. Generally speaking however the science text books are NOT filled with discussion of the botches, the results which cannot be replicated, or ambiguous and ill-controlled experiments (let alone the downright frauds).

Piltdown Man is sometimes discussed as a cautionary tale wrt evolutionary theories of man, the lesson of it in the modern context of course is that the hoax was made clear, and is completely obvious given modern dating technology and the much greater systematic taxonomy of hominids and early species that we have today.

The big failing the doubters and ranters have in their understanding is what an enormous number of interlocking observations/data/theory underpin almost all major theories of science. You can't pick and choose the way they would like ... the fabric of scientific knowledge is far more intertwined than they comprehend.

quote:

As might be expected, the age of the universe came in for some questioning. A standard that mentioned the universe was roughly 14 billion years old was amended to require students to evaluate "current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe." Elsewhere, students are instructed to consider how the data "reveal differing theories about the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe." Apparently, the board was unaware that our estimates of the age of the universe have narrowed considerably in the last few decades.

Of course, there are exotic theories of oscillating universes (big bang/big crunch, some of these 'brane theories) that make the age of the universe unknowable. I doubt that these theories are the ones the Texas board had in mind however.

Originally posted by Exelius:A detractor would claim that it is just like the dinosaur bones; it appears that way but it was designed that way by God as a test of our faith.

I know you're joking, but I have heard this argument before, more seriously. Even if you ignore the scientific issues, philosophically I just can't fathom a creator who gives us this incredible curiosity and drive to understand the world around us, and explain the unknown, and then sets everything we observe up to be fake. That's just dirty pool.

Why are non-scientists setting the science curriculum? Is there anyone out there besides Bible literalists who doubt evolution?

Because thats the way the real world works. Theres lots of people who still doubt evolution, but maybe not in the way you or I or anyone else thinks, maybe more in a "It happened but it just didn't happen on its own." way, or any number of different flavors of best guesses and conjecture and belief. For example, if you consider the Islamic world where everything is because God (or Allah) wills it to be so then it involves a whole different viewpoint. But then again, to each his own I guess, no one will ever be able to say for certain 100% fact until we come to some final moment in time that proves it one way or another because the fact is that we just don't really know right now for 100% fact one way or the other. If we did, this topic would not exist and all the hub bub one way or another would not exist.

Guess I'm just not familiar enough with the context, but I don't see what all the brouhaha is about. Is the concern that poor teachers will now have an excuse to bring pseudo-science into the classroom, or that good teachers will be forced to do so? I've been viewing it as the latter, but then I don't see how a requirement that teachers teach critical thinking (whether the language is "strengths and weaknesses," "analyze, evaluate, and critique," or "analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency") forces them to teach pseudo-science.

For example, does such language force teachers to talk about the flat-earth hypothesis? I wouldn't think so -- just like Wikipedia's NPOV policy doesn't mandate giving "equal validity" to every opposition view. And even if it does, wouldn't it actually be a useful exercise for students to talk about how the flat-earth model fails to fit the available data, and how, in contrast, a view of the Earth as a sphere much more accurately matches the data? (And if a student is actually skeptical about a spherical Earth, isn't such an exercise the best way to force him to reconcile his views with the data?)

Originally posted by cputeq:A simple understanding of biological processes, etc. doesn't require the understanding of evolutionism.

I'm sorry, but that's as naive as saying that understanding the path of a projectile in motion doesn't require the understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion. Evolution is not just some idea. It is the foundation of the modern understanding of Biology.

Has it always been this way with Texas' education standards? I spent my entire public education in Texas schools, and I don't ever recall being taught that evolution was a "maybe", that carbon dating was wrong (in fact we spent class time on calculating the ages of hypothetical objects via their carbon decay), or that the universe wasn't billions of years old. I guess what I'm asking is, do these decrees carry real weight, or does it come down to community education boards, or what? For the record, the schools I attended were in Dallas and Houston.

I'm sorry, but that's as naive as saying that understanding the path of a projectile in motion doesn't require the understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion. Evolution is not just some idea. It is the foundation of the modern understanding of Biology.

Depends on the context and how you view it. One doesn't need an understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion to understand that a bullet coming their way might kill them. And as is proven everyday by the current financial crisis, what was thought to be a sound foundation with "cookie cutter" explainations and reasoning and formulas doesn't always turn out to be so. Everything is just an idea and only becomes a foundation when people find a use for it, and it sticks around until something else comes along to replace it. Happens every day.

I wasn't being sarcastic, just stating fact of life that the practical or result might often out weigh the expected or predicted or theory and everything doesn't always fit into neat little theories and molds as we would hope.

Oh, well Buy Low - Sell High still works, but your buying lower and selling lower then the financial models that were the foundation predict. (and that was not sarcasm as its not needed, just discussion)

Originally posted by Jack_o:Depends on the context and how you view it. One doesn't need an understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion to understand that a bullet coming their way might kill them.

I hope that was said in sarcasm. Otherwise our lowest common denominator just got a little lower.

As far as I can tell, that's the sole reason Jack_o comes here.

Doesn't really matter how many times people say "science is never truly 100% conclusive". The 99.9999% certainty provided by a broad and interwoven tapestry of fields ranging from zoology to biochemistry, medicine to physical anthropology... well that just isn't enough. Better muddy the waters a little more.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack_o:But then again, to each his own I guess, no one will ever be able to say for certain 100% fact until we come to some final moment in time that proves it one way or another because the fact is that we just don't really know right now for 100% fact one way or the other.

See? Those scientists in otherwise loosely-connected fields who fundamentally agree on the solid foundations of biology? They're really just guessing. It could really go either way

Originally posted by Jack_o:Because thats the way the real world works. Theres lots of people who still doubt evolution, but maybe not in the way you or I or anyone else thinks, maybe more in a "It happened but it just didn't happen on its own." way, or any number of different flavors of best guesses and conjecture and belief.

You've met my mother, I take it? Good Catholic girl that she is. She used to be in the camp of the 6,000 year old earth, but in the past decade or so, the church started "accepting" the steps of evolution. However, each one of those "steps" was triggered by God.

Are there any residents of Texas present? I am most likely moving to Austin because the job market fits my long term needs. Should I be worried about my daughters Science education in the Public schools? Or should I just teach her the Science part myself? She all ready has a passion for Science at age 9 of which I heavily encourage. I guess private schools are always an option.

Doesn't really matter how many times people say "science is never truly 100% conclusive". The 99.9999% certainty provided by a broad and interwoven tapestry of fields ranging from zoology to biochemistry, medicine to physical anthropology... well that just isn't enough. Better muddy the waters a little more.

Nah, thats not the reason. The reason is because I get a big laugh out of those who would think their way is the only way and everyone else is always wrong except them and how people are so quick to be so opposed to someone elses thoughts because it seems a threat to their own belief. (isn't that a short partial definition of 'closed minded' and 'intolerance' ?) So its an entertainment factor for me.

Really, let me be honest for a second: I'm frustrated and baffled because you're thoroughly misunderstanding me and other pro-science folks (like the NI writers, if I can so boldly lump us together).

You suggest I'm afraid of ideas that seem to be "a threat to [my] own belief"? On the contrary! Definitive, rigorous, and reproducible evidence in favor of some theory better than biological evolution would be amazing! Show me a peer-reviewed paper on that and I'll personally staple it all over campus! Hell I'll walk 100 feet over and knock on the doors of biology professors and tell them to wise up. Seriously!

But all I've seen so far is "evolutionary theory is incomplete" or "the science isn't 100% conclusive". Well duh, that's not news to anyone in science, because they never claimed otherwise. As everyone loves to point out, gravitational theory is incomplete, for frak's sake. Show some evidence supporting a better idea already! If you can't, you have no right to denigrate the best one we've currently got.

At the very least, if you're having trouble articulating the science, list the name of an author you like. E.O. Wilson? Probably not. Ken Miller? Francis Collins? They're pro-religion but also against "intelligent design", so probably not them either. Who then?

The reason is because I get a big laugh out of those who would think their way is the only way and everyone else is always wrong except them and how people are so quick to be so opposed to someone elses thoughts because it seems a threat to their own belief.

I consider the actions of the Texas Board a threat to my belief that science should be taught in science classes

Others don't. Compromise with them.

Whee. Let's teach Japanese in English class! Portrait painting in music education class! Chinese communism in American history class! I could go on all day. School is for ninnies! War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength... (!)

It seems incredible that here we are, in the 21st century, and a group of less than a dozen religious zealots has the kind of power to affect millions of children across the country, but there you have it. One problem with a democracy — and it’s a doozy — is that it’s possible to game the system, and give far too much power to people who are far too unqualified for it.

I am very disappointed by the actions of the Texas State Board of Education. The changes to the standards are substantial and will, no doubt, ensure a reduction in the scientific and technological output from the USA in future years. However, this process will be slowed considerably by not going to the full length of just leaving evolution out and bringing creationism in. Now those of us living in Europe and Asia (and mainly those in China) will have to wait a few more decades until we achieve scientific and technological supremacy, and thus better living standards, over the USA. Our only hope is that another Bush presidency (this time by brainless Jeb)will speed the process considerably.

Just looked through that youtube video.. and WOW, the guy can't even comprehensively explain his own evidence against evolution.

Also, didn't he believe the world was created some 10000 years ago? And still he uses "Sudden appearances of groups of fossils 550 million years ago" as an argument against evolution.. ?? Either he is a total moron or he's bought by some radical church..

At least students are taught the globally accepted and more or less proven theory of evolution, and being taught to think critically and to analyze evidence before forming an opinion is great and fundamental in any science.

In the end I suppose it all comes down to the teachers in the different schools. A teacher who doesn't accept the theory of evolution won't be able to decently teach it to students. I have no idea of how it looks in Texas schools (As I'm not from there) but I assume science teachers probably have some sort of scientific education and thus are capable to give students accurate information on the subject.

As a Texas resident, I apologize for the idiocy of our so called "Board of Education". We are part of the "Bible Belt" and every time they discuss this, someone is trying to introduce creationism into and/or remove evolution from our science text books.

Fortunately, the textbook publishers will be able to use the vagueness and ambiguities in the language to ignore most of the modifications and keep creationism and evolution where each ought to be taught.

Here's my offer to the "Intelligent Design" proponents. You don't try forcing the teaching of belief systems such as creationism (aka "Intelligent Design") or preventing me from teaching science (which currently includes the theory of evolution) in the public schools, and I won't try to force you to teach science or prevent you from teaching creationism in your churches and church owned schools. Violate that and you'll have a serious fight on your hands. That's a fight you will not win.

I just wanted to post a thanks for the link to the Youtube video of McLeroy. It was both scary and sad and funny all at the same time. But, yes, my overwhelming response was, trying to be completely objective, "Why is this guy making an argument about the facts, or "supposed" facts I guess in his universe, of science (any science)?" It just seems weird that we let boneheads like this that close to the actual curriculum. I thought that's what bureaucracies were for: to buffer against the fashions that get politicians in office so that schools could get on with teaching.

There are concrete answers to these questions, but in the moment of watching that guy talk I found myself scared that he could be so close to the decision-making process about the nature of science and of science education.

Scientific Theories – The Party supports the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories, including Intelligent Design – as Texas law now requires but has yet to enforce.

Here's more:

quote:

Classroom Discipline – The Party recognizes that safety and order are prerequisites for an environment conducive to education for both the student and the teacher. We therefore recommend that local school boards and classroom teachers be given more authority to deal with disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment should be used when appropriate, and we encourage the legislature to strengthen existing immunity laws respecting corporal punishment. We urge the Texas Legislature, Governor, Commissioner of Education and State Board of Education to remind administrators and school boards that corporal punishment is effective and legal in Texas.

So not only will they teach students creationism in science classes, they'll beat it into them, if necessary.

The whole thing reads like an Onion parody, except that it is deadly serious.